the method does not change the law. the president sworn an oath to uphold the constitution and is bound by the law, whether the -- the law and the constitution applies in the same way. and again that's why think there's been a great deal of confusion about the technology here, when the technology is irrelevant to what the law and the constitution says. and the president is bound by the constitution, bound by the laws, and is sworn to uphold them. >> when you say he would never, you're saying that there are no circumstances. because i thought -- >> again, -- [talking over each other] you can make sort of wild hypothetical but that, they don't change the law. a distorted the case the president, part of his oath, ma to uphold the constitution is want to protect the united states. and in an event like an attack like pearl harbor or an attack like 9/11, obviously the president has the constitutional authority to take action to prevent those kinds of attacks. that has nothing to do with the technology used to prevent those at